No, I have experience with submitting comments, and I can check later if my comment appears.

“The entire realm of ethics is a debate over beliefs.”

Well, I consider lying about atheists to be unethical. I pointed out some of the author’s lies, like how he said “Those views that don’t meet my standard deserve to be suppressed. This is in fact the judgment atheists have made at each point in history that they have ruled” even though there have been plenty of atheists in history, like Mitterand and Gillard, who ruled without doing that.

That’s as dishonest and as harmful as blaming all Jews as being untrustworthy.

On the contrary, if lacking faith were the bar needed to be passed before action could be taken, nothing could be done. For example, when you pressed the submit button, you acted on faith that your comment would be posted.

The entire realm of ethics is a debate over beliefs. For example, there is no scientific basis to oppose murder. Yet we manage to confidently attempt to confront and prevent it through law and government.

People already can and do argue their beliefs. That’s liberty. Instead of chaos, we have a system designed to sort out debates (including beliefs of faith, etc.) and distribute representation and influence in the most equitable way possible.

A am sure there is some atheist out there with whom I can have a deep thought-provoking conversation. As it is, what I have encountered are people who do think all believers are absolute idiots who have abandoned reason, who believe in fairie tales, who are into superstition 100% and when an atheist approaches me that way, I feel so insulted I simply leave him talking to himself because I will not have a dialogue with someone who will not show me the least respect. I also find it amazing that so many atheists are so preoccupied with believers and God, while most of us, believers, just let them be and could care less whether they want to believe or not. If they don’t believe in God, well, that’s their business but why insult people that do?

As far as faith not being able to be explained, I find that statement idiotic at best. All one has to do is read St. Anselm’s “Proslogion,” “The City of God” of St. Augustine, “The Summa Theologicae” of St. Thomas Aquinas, the encyclical “Fides et Ratio” of Blessed John Paul II, and the the writings of the present Pope, to understand the tremendous honor and value the Church places on reason in understaning faith.

I also fully reject the atheist argument that religion is responsible for so many deaths in this world and they have to go back to the 12th century to point to numbers of dead people and they inflate those numbers also. On the other hand, they (atheists) will say nothing of 6 million Jews butchered by Hitler basing himself on a neo-pagan pholosophy, Pol Pot butchering his own people in Cambodia in 1975, definitely not basing himself on Buddhism or Hinduism, the 20 million exterminated by atheist Stalin, and the genocide committed against the Amenians in 1915 by a “secular” not a religious Turkish government. To add insult to injury, we have the slaughter of Tutsis in Uganda a few years ago and that was certainly not motivated by religion, yet atheists keep harping on the accusation that religion is responsible for most wars when in all the Crusades put together, we never lost millions as we did in the 20th century motivated by pagan ideologies having nothing to do with religion.

]]>By: Brian Westleyhttp://www.catholicvote.org/can-atheists-agree-to-disagree/comment-page-1/#comment-101669
Brian WestleySun, 30 Dec 2012 22:03:00 +0000http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=39848#comment-101669“If it is the latter [god belief based on faith], then we must immediately abolish any reference to god or religion in our kids’ education, in government and law. We can’t be a Christian nation if we believe god’s existence only on faith.”

I interpret the above statement very differently from you. As I see it, the statement above is only saying that beliefs that can’t be argued don’t belong in public education or the government and law.

As anyone can believe anything “on faith”, allowing anything along those lines into education, law, etc. is just inviting chaos. You need to offer arguments.

“But I was more troubled by the quick judgment: Those views that don’t meet my standard deserve to be suppressed.

This is in fact the judgment atheists have made at each point in history that they have ruled.”

Really? What did atheist François Mitterand do this when he ruled France? When did atheist Julia Gillard do this while ruling Australia? When did atheist David Ben-Gurion do this while founding and ruling Israel?
“They [atheists] either do it mildly and ban God from textbooks and libraries (as in America’s public schools)”

First, “god” isn’t banned from public schools — students can pray, read the bible (or the koran or the bhagavad gita or the god delusion, etc). You are promoting a longstanding lie pushed mostly by the Christian right in this country. Secondly, I doubt you could find a public library in the US that does NOT have, at least, a KJV bible.

“more aggressively and jail, guillotine or machine-gun those who believe in him.”

And when Christians were in charge of theocracies they burned heretics. However, the difference between you and me is that I don’t blame all Christians for the acts of some, while you appear to blame all atheists for the acts of some.

]]>By: Briana Grzybowskihttp://www.catholicvote.org/can-atheists-agree-to-disagree/comment-page-1/#comment-101662
Briana GrzybowskiSat, 29 Dec 2012 15:54:00 +0000http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=39848#comment-101662I agree. I’ve had atheists treat me like scum before and it wasn’t fun. She made the typical atheist “God is an imaginary friend” remark; as if the overwhelming majority of the people on the face of this earth are schizos destined for the psych ward just because we believe in God. I treated her kindly, but I wish I would have stood up for all of us more in that moment.
]]>